I believe that Cormier was trying to warn the youth about what happens when you start using violent protest as a form of dissent: you lose. During the decade before the writing of this book there is a very evident trend in protests. Non-violent protests achieved their goals and violent protests did not.
Some of the historial events that Cormier may have been drawing upon were the difference between the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War Protests.
On the whole Civil Rights Protests were largely non-violent. They became effective when they found national media because people didn't like police beating non-violent political dissidents. The Civil Rights Movement was very successful in that respect as the Civil Rights Act was made into law in 1964.
The Vietnam Protests had the sigma of being violent. On a regular basis protesters broke windows and threw rocks at police. These actions hindered their effectiveness because national government doesn't like it when you challenge them with violence.
I believe that this is what Cormier was trying to say by writing the boxing match as the climax of the book. If a dissident group is ever tricked into using violence as a form of protest against the larger group they will not be successful in the same way that Jerry was beaten to a pulp in the boxing match.
I don't like that the ending of this book is so dark. Jerry defies the school, Jerry gets is bones broken. It's a rather authoritarian message that doesn't promote the productive dissidence we need to make the world a better place.
- Jason McCoy
